"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?


How would you recommend that be accomplished?

I'm not sure. I have not personally examined the forces that pushed the
current system into place, so I'm not going to say how to push things in
a different direction.

.... Legislation?

Bad idea IMHO, for 2 fundamental reasons:
1- it's not likely to work all that well
2- that government is best which governs least.

Complete agreement with both points.

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in
place. You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to
believe that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of
disposing excess dollars.

Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the
value of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom
line. That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP
would be were advertising completely eliminated?

The value of advertising or the value of the quality of advertising?

If advertising were eliminated I think excess consumption would be reduced.
Do you realize how much of the economy is hinged on crap and stuff that
really isn't needed?



.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.

No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.

Smoking should be encouraged. Cigarettes should be put into school lunches.
Government should openly market death, rather than sugar coat it like it has
for decades. The food pyramid was a death triangle, above ground nuclear
testing harmed thousands, legislation banning 4 point seatbelts has led to
millions of additional injuries. Government should be honest and say they
are here to kill and rob you.
Gambling, smoking, booze - all big tax revenues for government! Advertise it
as so: "smoke and drink here while you gamble away your entire SS check!"
Provide free busing from nursing homes to casinos! Who should rreally worry
about a little sugar and trans fat?



If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism.


Who will protect us from government?

The same people that teach us about government?


Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above. And it would not
work unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial
benefit to the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.

Penalize advertising by not buying the product. Are some people so foolish
to believe that all advertising works? First you need a good product and
truthful advertising.



And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial? Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds
for pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products
that become addictive.

What identifiable ingredient in food is addictive? McDonald's is actually
good for you. In this case, too much of a good thing isn't exactly
wonderful.





It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.


Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There
appear to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good
ol' nanny state. I prefer the former.


If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.

And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.

Maybe runner up, unless you consider RB no longer a member.



Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives. If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism. Couching such actions in the guise of
selective/progressive taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of
denial. Either the government protects us from ourselves, or it does not.
How it effects such protection is irrelevant.

It's ok for government to stop us from ordering an extra side of fries, but
it's not ok for them to stop us from ripping an unborn baby from the womb
and tossing it in the dumpster - that's a "personal decision"! Oh the
hypocrisy!

Just get the government out of everyone's lives and businesses. Humans made
it for hundreds of thousands of years without governments. All government
and religion can really do is cause big wars. The worst individuals can do
is demonstrated at British soccer matches. Compare that to WWII.

Keep government small and limited if you really care about safety and well
being.



Capt. JG wrote:
Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.


One fact that is already on the ground is that advertising works.
Personal responsibility also works, when it is present.

Holy hypocrisy, Batman, that sure looks like just two alternatives to me.

Personal responsibility is always a choice. Some people just want government
to limit choices or worse yet, remove the consequences of those personal
choices and place the burdens of those responsibilities onto others.

There are no alternatives. Death is not an alternative. Either you chose to
live or you simply die.




Max